News
Buyer's Guide: The Best Monitors 
AMD Phenom X4 9650
| Caractéristiques | |||
| Socket | AM2+ | ||
| Number of cores | 4 | ||
| Clock rate | 2.3 GHz | ||
| Cache | 2 MB | ||
| Thermal Design Power | 125 W | ||
 Show all specifications
|
|||
| Technology | 65 nm |
 Hide specifications | |
Régis Jehl
Test date: November 6, 2008
Test date: November 6, 2008
Phenom X4 Line
Phenom processors made their debut in November 2007, with the X4 9000 series. The X4 9050 series, of which this 9650 is a member, followed soon after in April 2008 to correct a bug reported in the earlier line.
Using K10 architecture, these CPUs all have four cores, a 2 MB cache and fit AM2+ sockets.
The fact that they are manufactured at 65 nm does nothing to improve their efficiency, and they have a relatively high Thermal Design Power of 125 W.
Using K10 architecture, these CPUs all have four cores, a 2 MB cache and fit AM2+ sockets.
The fact that they are manufactured at 65 nm does nothing to improve their efficiency, and they have a relatively high Thermal Design Power of 125 W.
Like the rest of AMD's Phenom X4 processor range, this 9650 is an entry-level quad-core CPU.
It comes at a very attractive price, and most of its competition comes from dual-core processors rather than other chips with four cores.
Indeed, it comes nowhere near the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200, which, on paper at least, as an almost identical clock speed and the same number of cores.
Compare the AMD Phenom X4 9650 with the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 and other CPUs in our
Product Face-Off
Product Face-Off
Intel's chip is around 25% faster than this AMD model, with the most striking discrepancies appearing in applications that make the most of quad-core processors.
Applying a filter in Photoshop CS3, for instance, takes just 3 minutes 33 seconds on Intel's quad-core offering, while it's closer to 5 minutes on the 9650.
Up against the Core 2 Duo E8200, a dual-core processor, things are less clear-cut.
In some instances, the 9650 does manage to put its four cores to work.
When rendering a 3D image, it only needed 2 minutes 1 second, compared to the E8200's 2 minutes 40 seconds.
However, in situations where the AMD CPU can't put its four cores to work, the Intel processor has the upper hand: ripping a CD to MP3 in iTunes took it 2 minutes 37 seconds, while the E8200 managed the same task in 1 minute 45 seconds.
To conclude with a look at their energy consumption, it's fair to say that this really isn't the X4 series' strong point.
When the 9650 was using 100% of its capacity, it pushed our test PC's power consumption up to 299 W, while it idled at 197 W.
As a sample comparison, the Core 2 Quad Q8200 uses 161 W and 222 W respectively in the same conditions.
Pluses
-
Makes use of its four cores in some applications
Minuses
-
Not as powerful as it should be
-
Uses too much power
We find it quite hard to recommend you buy any of AMD's Phenom X4 processors. They might look cheap, but they fall way short of the mark given they're quad-core models.
